Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Complete Idiot's Guide... books

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all individual books, and redirect them to the series. Grand master ka 03:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Idiot's Guide... books[edit]

All of these are books in the "Complete Idiot's Guide to" series (like "Windows for Dummies"). Though they are good books, obviously none of them are in the caliber of From Beirut to Jerusalem and don't deserve articles on wikipedia. There is already an article on the series generally at The Complete Idiot's Guide to....

--Chaser T 00:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional entries added by TenOfAllTrades:

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these three, as none of them gives any particularly meaningful information that can't be determined from glancing at the cover. These are possibly real articles which could be written about these, but these aren't a good way to start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I deprodded one of them, but I see no reason to delete them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've also added some additional entries to the list. A redirect to The Complete Idiot's Guide to... might make sense in their places. The series as a whole is arguably a notable phenomenon, individual books from it are not. (I strongly urge anyone commenting here to look at these 'articles'.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all five. Unless a case can be made as to why any of these are notable in their own right a redirect to the series is a better idea. -- Scientizzle 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These books are notable in general, but not in specific. Crabapplecove 00:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I don't think your average how-to book or textbook has any reason for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 01:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also utterly pointless for Wikipedia to have any business keeping track of book editions. Sheesh. --Dhartung | Talk 01:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All These books are notable as well as popular to a niche market. They are good books and are definitely NOT average by nature. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 01:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently, I don't see any reason why we need an article for each book. Perhaps if these can be expanded beyond "This book makes topic x easier to understand for the average person," they might be worth keeping. Otherwise, put them in a list and redirect to the series article. Peyna 01:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete the "xth edition" ones, as they're monstrously unneccessary. Delete the others listed with a redirect to the series itself (that article could probably be expanded with a brief summary of what's in each book, but there's no need for separate articles on each). I'll admit, though, that the Koran one is written by at least one probably-notable author (Toropov), but that doesn't make the book itself notable. BigHaz 01:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot. The books' existence is verifiable, but the articles make no assertion of notability. Looking at the main The Complete Idiot's Guide to... page, there's plenty of room there for any discussion of notable books in the series, or even a complete list of titles (if the editors there deemed it appropriate), but I see no reason for any extra pages right now. Jacqui ^★ 02:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - should be mentioned in a single, generalised article. Do not warrant individual articles. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and unlink: The Complete Idiot's Guide is a nice, logical spot for mentioning the items in the series. If there is nothing to say about a particular one (and ...to Windows is probably the biggest seller and has the best claim), then this is mere fragmentation and clicking on redlinks that didn't need to be lodged in the first place. Geogre 03:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I agree with TenOfAllTrades and Geogre. —Encephalon 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Perhaps a footnote in the The Complete Idiot's Guide to... article might be appropriate, but even that could get listcrufty. On their own, they don't belong here. — NM Chico24 05:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. There can be a list of specific titles as part of the article on the series as a whole, but unless a specific book is particularly notable it should not have a separate article. Even if it is notable, it should only be split out of the main article if there are concerns over length, which at this point is not even worth thinking about. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure "delete and redirect" is prohibited by the GFDL, which is too bad, as I agree with the sentiment in a lot of cases.--Chaser T 05:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into the main article, obviously. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. But list in the main article wouldn't be too bad. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:21 (UTC)
Delete -Should be mentioned in Single. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and stubbify. And let some complete idiot expand upon the given article therein... Black-Velvet 06:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Geogre. Go ahead and add mentions to the main article if they're not there already. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per this whole mess of stuff above. R.E. Freak 08:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Haynes Manuals shows how notable series of instructional books should be dealt with. Uncle G 11:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The books themselves do not have any meaningful or unique content: they are simply guides, all with a similar format. A single article on the series (as expansive as necessary) would be quite reasonable, but one article on every book is ridiculous, unless a particular book in the series was unusually notable. Dark Shikari 11:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to series Unless there's enough notability and information to give a book its own page, it can be covered on the series page. They can be split if that ever happens, but it doesn't seem to be the case right now. Ace of Sevens 14:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete --Aoratos 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Stubbify The individual books aren't notable enough, but the series is, and should have an expanded article. --Saralk 16:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, at best they deserve a mention in the main article. alphaChimp ^laudare 18:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete add any useful content to their main series articles. rootology 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and stubbify, definitely, per Saralk. The individual books - and CERTAINLY the individual editions - are not notable, but the series really is and deserves a much more thorough article. Penelope D 21:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as we delete these books, we are necessarily setting a precedent and bar for all books. Unless something is particularly notable about a book or an author, WP judges notability by sales volumes; these have relatively high sales volumes that few books will match or beat. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps a good rule to use would be, if a book comes in a series, is its sale volume notally better than that of its series overall? If a book sold very well, but the rest of the series sold equally well, it might well be better to cover the whole series in a single article. (The length of the series in question may also have some influence.) Penelope D 05:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's true that ...Middle East is #2,949 at Amazon[1], ...Koran #168,013[2] & ...Iraq #500,655[3]. From those numbers, I'd think only ...Middle East has a strong case for an individual article based upon sales. In this situation the books are part of a larger, notable franchise that, I think, would benefit from a comprehensive review of all titles. This doesn't preclude a future creation of individual articles, but the state of the current book-specific articles is pathetic and the series article is woefully underdeveloped. Fatten up The Complete Idiot's Guide to... and branch off as needed. -- Scientizzle 21:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all HOWEVER merge any cases of "2nd edition" or "3rd edition". These do not need separate articles. I see no reason why individual books for this series are any less notable than individual articles on fiction series books. I also agree with the above that this sets a bad precedent. Also, I completely disagree with POV reasoning given by the nominator -- just because the nominator feels certain books are not as good as another book, that's no reason to deny an article to said books. It's like someone trying to get the article on "The Da Vinci Code" deleted on the grounds that he or she believes the book is not as good as "Holy Blood and Holy Grail". 23skidoo 23:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did phrase it that way. I should have said none of the books are individually notable, which is what I was thinking (and apparently imagining people were telepathic). I think the way to deal with these is to create a list like List of ...For Dummies books, as I note that even "Windows for Dummies" lacks an article (though perhaps that book is notable enough to have one).--Chaser T 02:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all except edition-specific. Merge editions into a single article for each title. Create a category to make it easy for readers to find the books. Fg2 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are the non-edition-specific ones really notable enough by themselves to justify having articles, though? Currently they're just a couple of sentences explaining what the book is about - which the title of the article tends to be able to do adequately. BigHaz 02:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the individual books, but have an entry for the series.Edison 05:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete each individual article, make one article that covers information about the series. Maybe a list of best selling ones. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual articles but maintain a good article on the overall series per others above. Metamagician3000 06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.